A33359:114
Diocesan churches not yet discovered in the primitive times
Diocesan churches not yet discovered in the primitive times, or, A defence of the answer to Dr. Stillingfleets allegations out of antiquity for such churches against the exceptions offered in the preface to a late treatise called A vindication of the primitive church, where what is further produced out of Scripture and ancient authors for diocesan churches is also discussed.Diocesan churches not yet discovered in the primitive times, or, A defence of the answer to Dr. Stillingfleets allegations out of antiquity for such churches against the exceptions offered in the preface to a late treatise called A vindication of the primitive church, where what is further produced out of Scripture and antient authors for diocesan churches is also discussed.
London: printed for Thomas Parkhurst, 1682
Diocesan Churches not yet discovered in the Primitive times.
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
But this signifies as much to my purpose as I need; for the Donatists having a Bishopric in Hippo, St. Austin's must needs be diminished thereby, and altogether as much lessened, as if they had not been Usurpers. And they were counted no otherwise Usurpers, but so that if the Donatist Bishop had been reconciled; by a Decree of the African Church he was to continue in his Bishop-there, as a rightful Possessor, and there would have been still two Dioceses (such as they were) in one Town.
But this signifies as much to my purpose as I need; for the Donatists having a Bishoprick in Hippo, St. Austin's must needs be diminished thereby, and altogether as much lessened, as if they had not been Ʋsurpers. And they were counted no otherwise Ʋsurpers, but so that if the Donatist Bishop had been reconciled; by a Decree of the African Church he was to continue in his Bishop-there, as a rightful Possessour, and there would have been still two Diocesses (such as they were) in one Town.
He would have us believe Austin as if he declared, that he was not the Bishop of the Town only; but his words are, Ut modum dispensationis meae non supergrediar hoc Ecclesiae ad Hipponensem Regionem pertinenti prodesse contestor, which, says our Author, plainly signifies, that all the Church belonging, not only to the Town, but but also to the Region of Hippo, belonged to him.
He would have us believe Austin as if he declared, that he was not the Bishop of the Town only; but his words are, Ʋt modum dispensationis meae non supergrediar hoc Ecclesiae ad Hipponensem Regionem pertinenti prodesse contestor, which, sayes our Author, plainly signifies, that all the Church belonging, not only to the Town, but but also to the Region of Hippo, belonged to him.
But if he please to view the words again which himself hath quoted, he will find it plainly signified, that Austin's Church belonged to the Region of Hippo, but not that all the Church both in Town and Region, belonged to him. Antonius Bishop of Fussala might have said this as truly of his Church there, as Austin did it of his Church at Hippo; it did ad Hipponensem Regionem pertinere, belong to the Region of Hippo. And it may be as justly inferred from hence, that all the Church both in the Town and Region of Hippo belonged to the Bishop of Fussala. If our Author will allow of this (as he must if he will